A Case Initiated regarding a Norm of the Sentence Execution Code
On 6 November 2013 the 1st Panel of the Constitutional Court initiated a case “On Compliance of the Sixth Sentence of Section 563(3) of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme”.
Contested Norm (in italics)
Section 563(3) of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia provides: “In order to employ a convicted person, the head of the institution for deprivation of liberty issues a respective order, which simultaneously is a permission to the convicted person to be at a specific place of work during the working hours. This order is an integral part of the agreement or employment contract referred to in this Section. Upon issuing the order, the head of the institution for deprivation of liberty takes into consideration the regime for serving the punishment set for the convicted person. The refusal to issue an order on employing the convicted person must be substantiated. The order on the refusal to employ a convicted person may be appealed against at the Prison Authority. The decision by the Prison Authority is not subject to appeal.
Norm of Higher Legal Force
The first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme: “Everyone has the right to defend his or her rights and lawful interests in a fair court“.
Facts
The case has been initiated having regard to the constitutional complaint of Mārtiņš Ēcis, which expresses the opinion that the contested norm places disproportional restrictions upon his right to a fair court. The contested norm envisages appealing against the order by the head of the institution for the deprivation of liberty at the Prison Authority, but does not envisage the possibility to appeal against the decision by the Prison Authority at court. Thus, the right to a fair court is essentially denied.
Mārtiņš Ēcis has requested a permission to work outside the prison territory, but has received a refusal, which cannot be appealed against in court.
Legal Proceedings
The Constitutional Court has asked the Saeima to provide a reply on the facts of the case and legal substantiation by 10 January 2014.
The term for preparing the case is 4 April 2014. The Court shall decide upon the procedure and the date for hearing the case after the case has been prepared.
Linked case: 2013-18-01